Lost his last election, in 2006, with 35% of the vote.
Immigration October 30th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, the smuggling of people into Canada is part of the definition of organized crime and organized crime is indeed one of the top priorities of our department.
We have approximately 16,000 of them coming into Canada every year. We have adopted among the most severe penalties in the world in this regard. We are active on international forums to address it from an international perspective, which is the only valid one.
As we speak the solicitor general is discussing with his—
Military Missions Beyond Canadian Boundaries October 29th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I will leave the grandstanding and political posturing to my colleague across the floor and concentrate on facts.
The RCMP is a government funded agency. Like all government entities it is expected to live within its established budgets. Decisions concerning the manner in which money is spent by the RCMP are operational questions appropriately left to the professional management of the RCMP. As is the case in several provinces, the RCMP is a provincial police force in British Columbia under contract with the provincial government.
First, as of December 1, 1998, 4,284 of the 4,286 authorized police contract positions in B.C. were filled. That is an average of 99.9%. It is not a bad batting average. Second, there have been no layoffs of RCMP members. Third, overtime is allowed for critical operational situations. Fourth, RCMP boats and aircraft are being maintained and are available for emergency use.
I would like to quote a letter from the RCMP commanding officer in British Columbia to the RCMP men and women in a division. It indicated that public safety remained its number one priority and would not be compromised.
Let me say as parliamentary secretary that I share the priority of public safety, not politicking the way the members across are doing.
National Block Parent Week October 26th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, this week is National Block Parent Week. This year marks the 30th anniversary of the block parent program in Canada.
Public safety is one of the government's highest priorities. All Canadians want their communities to remain safe, and that is why organizations like Block Parents of Canada exist.
This organization deserves our recognition and support. The volunteers who make up the program devote their time and energy to raising public awareness, ensuring the safety of their communities and, above all, protecting our children.
Whether involved in making schoolyards safer, reducing street crime, or decreasing the public's fears of crime, this program is a concrete illustration of the importance Canadians attach to public safety, a value this government shares.
I am calling upon all Canadians to join us in honouring Block Parents of Canada and its remarkable work in our communities.
The Late Jean Rafa October 23rd, 1998
Mr. Speaker, the singer Jean Rafa, of Nuits de Montréal fame, died yesterday at the age of 88. An artist and entertainer, Mr. Rafa had hosted many variety broadcasts since coming to Quebec in 1948.
Quebeckers adopted him as one of their own, and it was he who was responsible for popularizing pétanque in the province. But he was best known for his infectious joie de vivre and as a popular host on numerous television shows. He also went on many tours of Quebec.
In short, we will treasure wonderful memories of this artist and singer, who enchanted almost everyone with his zest for life and his love of Quebec, a love that I share.
Criminal Code October 20th, 1998
—and attempts to interfere with answers, as if they were of no interest to the person asking the question. It seems to me that, if a person asks a question, it is because he or she wants an answer to it.
The premise of the hon. member opposite is something I reject as absolutely morally untenable. It is based on what was allegedly overheard from a private conversation in a plane, something a third party, someone not included in the conversation, had the audacity to make public, without regard to any responsibility for the consequences this might have on the credibility of the commission.
One thing is certain, the contents of the conversation in the plane between the solicitor general and Mr. Toole were part of a private discussion. So people can ask all the questions they want in whatever way they want, but I will not talk about the content of that conversation for two reasons. First, I was not on that plane and I invite my colleagues to exercise the same kind of restraint since they were not on that plane either. Before taking this at face value, I think there are some ethical considerations to be taken into account. Second, I will not talk about it because, by definition, it was not a public but a private conversation. It is not my place to comment publicly on a private conversation.
Moreover, the members talk about providing funding for the students and they throw in a lot of unfounded allegations. However, a decision was made in this House with regard to this issue. It was explained at length that this issue does not affect only that specific commission or that specific problem but that, when a precedent is created, it applies to all administrative tribunals.
Criminal Code October 20th, 1998
Madam Speaker, it is my impression that there is a lot of repetition in this House—
Supply October 20th, 1998
What I believe, Mr. Speaker, is of no importance whatsoever. What is important is to preserve the integrity of the commission's decision-making process. It is the one to decide.
Any response one way or the other would be an interference in the commission's integrity and independence.
Supply October 20th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, the question surprises me. It is as if my colleague were unaware that the government has no right to dictate the conduct of the commission.
Supply October 20th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I would have preferred not to have to address that, because I have a great deal of respect for my colleagues, but I am going to do so, because my colleague's question leaves me no choice. What we have just heard is not even a question, but an allegation.
All the airing of events that are supposed to have compromised the integrity of the commission and its work is the upshot of the deliberate disclosure of a private conversation on the strength of highly questionable moral principles.
In my opinion, the member opposite should be a little more honest and objective, and admit that we are not the ones undermining the commission's credibility. It is they who are doing so, with their repeated questions, unfounded allegations, insinuations and witch hunts. That is how they are undermining the commission's credibility. Them, not us.
When they talk about a cover-up, again this is an allegation for immediate political reasons that have nothing to do with the truth we are all seeking. As for the lawyers there to represent the public servants, that is normal practice. They are not the ones complaining. The complainants are complaining.
Supply October 20th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I must say that, as a Canadian—and I am not saying this for the sake of it or because I happen to sit in this House—I am truly and always concerned about anything that relates to human rights.
Without getting into specifics, I want to give you a few examples of what I mean. I had the pleasure of leading the delegation that travelled to Chiapas to talk about human rights. Incidentally, I am very pleased with the progress made by the Reform Party which, at the time, showed no interest in coming to see what the human rights situation was, but which has now suddenly become a champion of these rights.
I played an active role regarding the land mines issue. I also tabled a petition on behalf of the Chinese minority in Indonesia, whose rights are being trampled. I will stop here, but I do think I have a very specific interest in human rights. That is why I would like to know what really happened at the Vancouver APEC summit, in November. I would really like to know.
This truth is important to me on several levels—naturally on the level of human rights and on the level of how we conduct ourselves as a democracy. I think Canadians have the right to know that.
Beyond the TV images that upset me as they did everyone, what really happened? There is an organization, an institution established a number of years ago, whose role was and remains to direct us to the truth we are all after.
This commission was set up specifically to hear public complaints about the conduct of the RCMP. Clearly the mandate of the commission—not only as it appears in the texts establishing it, but also in the interpretation given it by its own chair—enables it to determine the truth we are after.
The interesting part of this is that the commission is an example of the commissions and administrative tribunals established by the legislator so that complainants would not have to pay for legal representation for justice to be done.
I think the motion before us today runs counter to the spirit of the legislator in establishing this commission. In purely emotional terms, it would be appealing to support this initiative. However, we must consider, as the government—and I was going to say as responsible members—the consequences of our actions.
And what are these consequences? If administrative tribunals were set up by the legislator so complainants would not need the services of a lawyer in order to be heard or for justice to be done, we are moving in the opposite direction and questioning the very principle of administrative tribunals. We are questioning the initiative of the legislator, who, regardless of the party in power, established this procedure to give the public a forum it previously lacked. The public has access to this forum without legal representation.
If we agree with the principle underlying this motion, it means—and we have to realize this—that we are creating a precedent. By creating this precedent, we are indicating our willingness as a government to adhere to the principle of providing and paying for legal services in other tribunals or in this one for other cases. This touches on the question of the costs that may be incurred as well as the real purpose of these organizations.
There is, of course, a fundamental question we must ask ourselves: Is this in the Canadian public's interest? Is this in the interest not only of the complainants in this case but also of those who may file a complaint in the future before this commission or any other administrative tribunal? Is it in the interest of complainants to say that, from now on, lawyers will be provided or that they will have to be represented by lawyers? We would then create a precedent so that things would have to be done the same way in future.
Before making such an important and far-reaching decision, I think the least we can do is to give it careful consideration. I have no lessons in democracy to learn from anyone. I say this in all humility and simplicity. This debate is not about defending democracy. Any time someone rises in this House or takes a stand nationally for democracy, whether from the NDP or any other party represented in this House, I will be the first to support any initiative to ensure that democracy in this country is not only respected but also furthered.
That is not the issue. The issue is whether it would be legitimate and responsible to fund legal representation for an individual complainant or group of complainants who have access to justice by extremely clear means that lawmakers intended to make accessible to all?
I cannot help but conclude on a somewhat sad note. Today, we are asked to fund legal representation for complainants before this commission. But for weeks now, every initiative, each and every question the opposition has put to us in this House had a single purpose: to undermine the credibility of the RCMP public complaints commission as an institution. There is a fundamental contradiction: on the one hand, the credibility of this institution is not recognized and, on the other, they want funding for lawyers to make representations to this commission. This does not make any sense. I am sorry, but I do not see the logic here.
Too often, the members opposite accuse us of blindly toeing the party line. I have been in this august place for just over a year and I cannot remember when the New Democratic Party in particular allowed its members to vote as they wished. Unless I am mistaken, and I am sure somebody will be only too glad to correct me, those members vote along party lines, whether for private members' bills or other kinds of bills.
In a great majority of cases, the same is true for many political parties. I cannot say that this is always so, because I would have to look into it thoroughly, but what is clear, and I am sure those following our debates and votes on television see this too, is that these political parties vote along party lines, but as soon as we vote according to our conscience and that turns out to be the party's collective conscience, we are no longer entitled to do so or are doing something wrong.
It is a double standard. I do not think anyone is fooled.